The impact is mass genocide – the scapegoated party becomes symbolic of all evil and must be destroyed

Unity is the important concept in all scapegoating activity; the scapegoat represents the group's push toward its own wholeness by excluding its disparate elements. Thus scapegoating can be detected anywhere there is a transfer of negative attribution from one part of the system to another, or from one part of the system to an object outside the system, in order to fulfill what is perceived to be a unifying survival function for the system as a whole. The creation of a scapegoat requires a process akin to the psychological mechanisms of projection and projective identification in that it uses an other to contain aspects of oneself. The scapegoat is created by "projecting" the darker side of group life, the darker side being the reality of evil and sin in society. For the individual, the shadow contains those elements of the psyche that are not accepted as his or her own. As individuals we attempt to project that shadow onto others. Likewise, the group finds common negative ground in the scapegoat. But the scapegoat is not identical to the shadow; the scapegoat is a collective creation, a symbolic compromise for many individuals' negative projections. One can say that the scapegoat is humanity's societal vessel for the shadow - a vessel which is, by definition, innocent of the burden it assumes. The scapegoat is a very ancient archetype and scapegoating an ancient activity, so ancient that there are few societies where evidence of the practice has not been found. We have records of animals used as scapegoats that go back to ancient Hittite and Sanskrit texts. The works of modern authors who have used the scapegoat as a major theme (Dostoyevsky, Jackson, Lessing, for example) all hearken back to ancient days and a collective symbol that incorporates the worst of our projections in a strange, inanimate object. It is an image that taps our most primitive parts even today. An early biblical story, the basis of Yom Kippur and one that underlies the crucifixion of Jesus captures the fundamental Western image of the scapegoat. The story begins with the Israelites fleeing Egypt. Aaron and God soon find that the law and monotheism are not sufficient to colltain the Israelites who, after years ofenf<)rced slavery, have no experience taking responsibility for their own behavior. The priests arc overwhelmed with the sin offerings of a guilty people and begin a return to primitive practices rather than staying within the new laws. After several priests have been killed for violating the law, God takes a new look at what is really possible with his chosen people. First the priests create a Day of Atonement, the current Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, during which individual and collective sins of omission and commission are acknowledged and forgiven. But even this symbolic process is not sufficient, and the scapegoat is added. Hilt the goat, Oil which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall he presented alive be/()re the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness. (Lev. 16:10) The power of this biblical scapegoating process is seen in the phenomena of contagion. Referring to the man who takes the scapegoat into the wilderness, the narrative reads: And he that let go the goat, for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp. (Lev. 16:26) The process of contagion underlines a frequent functional difference between group projection and the creation of the scapegoat and individual projection and the creation of the external bad object. In scapegoating, the projection is so generalized that there is little possibility of retrieval. A boundary is erected between group members and scapegoat – the wilderness or death itself – which insures what Hitler called "the final solution." Contagion requires this boundary. It is usually not enough for the scapegoat to be exiled. It must be destroyed. Even so, the symbolic vessel of the chosen animal cannot, because of its compromise quality, entirely contain the projected evil. The person who touches the scapegoat runs the risk of becoming the next scapegoat. Most horribly, the inadequacy of this process of containment gradually requires more and more potent symbols: objects or animals become increasingly inadequate and the flesh-and-blood scapegoating of humans and human subgroups becomes an acceptable practice. This has required sophisticated rationalizations based on what Eric Erickson (1972) has called pseudospeciation to describe how a ruling or dominant group can justify locating the scapegoat function in its slaves or any other group cast as different and lower than itself. We have many examples from modern times – Armenians, Amerindians, South African Blacks, European Jews, Palestinians – all used as scapegoats in order to serve the hoped-for but specious unity of nationhood, much as individuals use shadow projections to serve the hoped-for but conscious individuation of the person. And here we see a critical connection between the growth processes in individuals and in groups, for scapegoats not only deter group development but also hamper integration of shadow projections, a necessary step in the individuation process. As long as there are scapegoats – unintegrated shadow figures for the group – integration of the shadow within the individual is an illusion. One might even say that, for the individual, the process of individuation will always be held hostage to the presence of the scapegoat in the larger community. Perhaps this feels like too heavy a burden for the individual to accept-to take on the responsibility for the scapegoats of the world as part and parcel of one's own attempts to integrate the personal shadow. Religious traditions have encountered this dilemma in the personage of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition, for example, and in the modern-day "neutrality" of the Pope and other religious leaders during the Holocaust. As we have seen, Jung's definition of individuation does not emphasize this connection between individual shadow and group scapegoat. His model, including the way it has been interpreted, tends to deemphasize the need to burden ourselves with the suffering of others as part of our own growth processes. To imagine the individuation process this way, however, is to accept that man is an island, that the suffering in the world is someone else's responsibility and does not grow from us or affect us. I for one reject this possibility. Individuation is an awesome burden precisely because it requires a connected, integrated outlook. Individuation demands that our bonds with other humans be included in the equation of our own development. We are all part of the scapegoating process. We are all a part of others' suffering. By our silence, we give it passive support and supply our shadows with more energy, defeating each of our attempts at integrating the archetype. We must not only accept our responsibility for the scapegoat, we must do something about it. Individuation under any other terms can be just narcissistic play.